Can We Cut A Few Strings?

It happens to everyone. My personal life and other commitments have intruded upon the time I have had to devote to this blog for the past few weeks. There has been an almost constant string of matters hitting me at an accelerated pace.

There have been funerals and visiting friends in the hospital. That is likely a factor of my age and that of my friends.

There is my attempt to help with a lawsuit that deals with Constitutional issues relating to mental illness. There is research on other matters. And the list goes on.

I am taking a shortcut by posting an Op-Ed piece from the New York Times by Phil Keisling. It offers a potential solution to an endemic problem of our body politic.

As one of my degrees is in Political Science and I have had the practical experience of holding public elective office, I find Mr. Keisling’s post of particular interest. This idea is not original to him. He points out that the State of Washington has already implemented it and it is on the ballot in California.

It is far from a cure-all but it should provide some relief to the present toxic level of political discourse.

I feel certain that there are at least one or two Republicans in Congress who might find themselves in agreement with the Democrats on some obscure issue. At present though, every Republican is in lockstep, opposing every Democratic proposal.

I’m not suggesting total comity but you are likely as disgusted as I with the total comedy that is our political system. Party loyalty has replaced our political representatives’ obligation to us and engendered a disturbing lack of decorum. The parties are jerking the strings of our politicians. They are, to varying degrees, willing puppets. This suggestion will not cut all of the strings but it can begin the task.

Want to get serious about reducing the toxic levels of hyper-partisanship and legislative dysfunction now gripping American politics? Here’s a direct, simple fix: abolish party primary elections.

From now to September, virtually every state will hold primaries to select Democratic and Republican candidates for the November general election. At stake are 36 Senate and 435 Congressional seats, along with 37 governorships and more than 6,000 state legislative seats.

What can we likely expect? Abysmal voter turnout; incessant waves of shrill, partisan invective; and legions of pandering politicians making blatant appeals to party extremists. Once you understand the role that party primary elections really play, and who votes and doesn’t, the real question isn’t why our politics are so dysfunctional — it’s how could they not be?

The current party primary system was actually reformist, an early 20th-century innovation to replace the smoke-filled backrooms of party bosses. Though party leaders fought this effort, within a generation it and the direct election of senators eventually swept the country — and improved our politics considerably.

But a century later, this reform has outgrown its usefulness. We are left with a system in which almost every state still outsources its elections to what are actually private organizations. With the approval of the Supreme Court, the parties have the authority to exclude independent voters or other non-members who might seriously challenge their partisan shibboleths or taboos.

Some state parties deign to allow non-members to participate in their primaries. But very few independents bother. Most party members don’t, either. In 2006, during the last non-presidential primary cycle, most states had turnouts of only 15 percent to 30 percent of registered voters (New York had less than 5 percent). So far, the 2010 primary cycle has shown a new low of 23 percent in Illinois, and 16.5 percent in Texas, a record high for that state.

So what can be done? States should scrap this anachronistic system and replace it with a “fully open/top two” primary. All candidates would run in a first round, “qualifying” election, with the top two finalists earning the chance to compete head-to-head in November. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, even “None of the Above’s” could all run in the first round. Voters would certainly know candidates’ party affiliations, but no political party would automatically be entitled to a spot on the November ballot.

This would create far more races that were truly competitive, especially across the vast majority of lopsided districts where winning the party primary essentially guarantees election. In those districts, both finalists might be from the same party, but there could be genuine differences between the two that would give voters a meaningful choice.

Of course, it’s likely that the finalists of most qualifying elections would still be a Democrat and a Republican. But these candidates often would be (or, at least, act) different than those produced by partisan primaries. Gone would be the ideological purity tests of primaries, which more and more punish the Republican concerned with global warming or the Democrat wrestling with eye-popping budget deficits. Candidates wouldn’t have to practice the dark arts of the “message zigzag,” securing the base then feinting to the center. A system without partisan primaries would reward candidates who work, from Day 1, to appeal openly and forthrightly to the broadest group of voters.

To replace party primaries with this fairer election system requires no federal legislation, or even any changes to most state Constitutions. State legislators or voters could do it with simple, majority votes, as Washington State voters did in 2006. This June, California voters will have a chance to become the second state free of party primaries — a move favored by 68 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats there, according to a recent poll. I myself was the chief petitioner of an unsuccessful ballot measure to change Oregon’s system in 2008. I hope we’ll have another chance here.

The primary system gives disproportionate power to the shrillest and most mean-spirited of our partisans, while preventing civil dialogue and progress on a host of important issues. But a “fully open/top two” system would empower every American to be able to vote for the best candidate in every election. That is as good and achievable an antidote to what now ails the body politic as our democracy can hope for.

Phil Keisling, a Democrat, was the Oregon secretary of state from 1991 to 1999.

Whether this is one of the needed solutions or not, it is worthy of consideration.  Term limits would be of great benefit but are at least a long way off, if even possible. Are you aware of other answers?

.

Tagged as: ballot, california, constitution, democratic, dysfunctional, election, funeral, general election, greens, hospital, illinois, independent, jester, libertarian, new york, new york times, oregon, partisanship, phil keisling, political, political science, primary, puppet, representative, republican, senate, supreme court, tea-partier, term limits, texas, toxic, voters, washinton